As the Financial Services Authority prepares to crack down on the power of dominant shareholders, in response to abuses seen at companies such as Kazakhstan-based ENRC and Bumi, spare a thought for Goodwin plc.

Never heard of it? That's understandable since the engineering firm, based in Stoke-on-Trent and worth £100m, is the polar opposite of ENRC and Bumi. Founded in 1883, Goodwin and its 960 employees get on with their business in a quiet, and extremely successful, manner. The company has been listed on the London Stock Exchange since 1958, the last time it raised equity capital, and over the past two decades its share price has risen from 40p to £15. Compare that to Bumi's 85% collapse during its 18-month journey from cash shell to Indonesian disaster story.

Goodwin's only similarity to the likes of ENRC and Bumi is that has a dominant shareholder in the form of the Goodwin family, which owns 56% of the shares. In spirit and governance, Goodwin is essentially a family firm. John Goodwin is the chairman, his brother Richard is managing director and each has two sons in the business. Nor – and this is the critical point now that the FSA is on the warpath – does Goodwin have independent non-executive directors. It thinks they are too costly and unlikely to add value, says the annual report.

Naturally, that explanation receives short shrift from the governance watchdogs. Ahead of Goodwin's annual meeting next week, the Association of British Insurers has issued one of its rare "red top" warnings and Pirc has expressed "significant concern". Goodwin is used to such complaints but, under the current "comply or explain" regime, life goes on. Richard Goodwin says shareholders speaking for about 0.05% of the shares tend to grumble about governance while "the other 99.95% just tell us to get on with what we are doing".

Under the FSA's proposals, that would change. "Comply or explain" would be replaced with "comply". Goodwin would have to appoint a majority of independent non-executives to its board or see its premium listing on the London Stock Exchange cancelled. Them's the rules – or proposals, as they currently are – and the FSA wants to apply them equally to mining companies out of the former Soviet Union and family-controlled 130-year old engineers from the Potteries.

Admittedly, there aren't many listed firms that fit Goodwin's category. But, in another context, you would expect officialdom to be shouting about Goodwin's success since it practises most of the virtues that almost everybody agrees represent the best route towards revival for the UK's manufacturing base.

It exports its valves to oil, gas and energy producers around the world and makes long-term investment a priority. The annual report explains that after a 51% rise in pre-tax profits to £12.3m this year's dividend is being increased by "only" 10% (which doesn't sound too bad), so that new projects can be financed, including the training of 125 apprentices over the next five years.

But, no, if the FSA plans are adopted, Goodwin would have to accept a lower-grade "standard" listing in London, or shove off to the Alternative Investment Market. It'll have to be something of that sort since Richard Goodwin thinks the firm would not be able to continue making the same returns for shareholders if it packed its board with non-executives.

Maybe Goodwin is such an exceptional case that it should be ignored when it comes to setting boardroom rules. After all, the likes of ENRC clearly need more powerful non-executives to stop them being personal fiefdoms. But it's bizarre that the UK listing authority, finally understanding that it too casually embraced the rush of billionaire-backed foreign mining outfits, should cause trouble for an old and successful UK engineer that doesn't fit the standard blueprint.

As for ABI and Pirc: come on, you do fine work in checking boardroom abuses at public companies, but there are better targets for your criticisms than a company whose few outside shareholders are delighted with their investment.